Monthly Archives: August 2014

The nationalisation of Australian Education is long overdue. Historically, vast distances, poor communications and travel time made it impractical for Australian education to be founded on a national basis. Each State and more recently the NT developed educational systems to suit their particular needs.

As a modern nation, Australia has reduced the tyranny of distance. Technology has enriched our capacity to communicate. Reasonable costs make both travel and communications far more affordable than in earlier years. To consider educational development at a national level makes sense. Instead, education remains trapped within the confines of state and territory mentality.

Reaction

Suggestions that we should think nationally about educational futures are received with suspicion. One of the fears held by States and Territories with smaller populations, is that they will be prevailed upon by the voice of our major states. When nationalisation is brought up, objections are invariably raised by State and Territory politicians and educators because of ‘big brother’ mentality. Each educational jurisdiction wants to set its own agenda and resents being told what to do by Canberra.

Three areas

There are three areas in which a nationalised approach to education would benefit students and assist teachers. Only one has been introduced. In 2006 the
Australian Government introduced the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Year 3, 5,7, and 9 students sit literacy and numeracy tests held over three days in May each year.

While these tests offer a ‘snapshot’ of competence for all students assessed, they were and still are premature. National testing that is not based on a national curriculum is somewhat illogical. While test administration is being refined each year, the National Curriculum on which tests should be based is a long way from being in place in all Australian Schools. Furthermore, the national agenda is not being uniformly introduced. States and Territories will roll out the National Curriculum when they are individually ready to make the change. This staggered start is confusing.

National teacher registration is the third area needing to be addressed. At the moment, registration is only valid in the teacher’s State or Territory of residence. National registration would enable teachers to seek employment and possibly facilitate transfer from one jurisdiction to another.

Police clearances

Obtaining police clearance, a prerequisite to gaining teacher registration and employment is also administered by each State and Territory. It would make sense to nationalise this requirement or to allow police clearance to have Australia-wide portability. In order to obtain an NT Ochre Card, teachers coming from interstate, again have to go through the clearance process. This can take some weeks.

Student awareness would be greatly aided by a nationalisation strategy.
* Tracking student movement between States and Territories would be easier.
* Transfer of student records to and from interstate schools would allow the gaining school to have an up-to-date picture of new enrolees coming from interstate.

There is much to celebrate about education within Australia. But a deterrent to progress has been the obstinacy of State and Territory Governments to support nationalisation. Rather, systems have dug in and hung back. Australian educational oneness and unity still seem a long way off.
__________________________

SCHOOL DENTAL CARE WAS PROVIDED

Jill Poulsen’s story ‘Kid’s clinic is helpful way to healthy smiles’ (NT News August 13) was a reminder of the way dental care was provided in our schools. Newcomers to the Territory reading Poulsen’s story, might believe that dental care for primary school aged children is a new initiative. This is far from being the case. We had a superior school based service in our urban schools which was second to none. There was also dental outreach stretching far beyond Darwin and Palmerston.

When it comes to dental health, Territory children are in a perilous place. “Ms Lambley said research from 2010 showed the NT has the highest rate of tooth decay in six year old children at 61 per cent.” (op.cit.)

This story reflects on a sad fact; We used to have excellent, school based dental support services in our NT schools but that service has slipped into history.

How it was

The Departments of Education and Health placed a high priority on the need for children’s dental care. Most urban schools had a room set up as an on-site dental clinic. Dental therapists and technicians held clinics in each school for a week each month. During that time, dental staff offered screening programs for all students. Dental records detailing inspection and treatment were maintained. If children moved, dental records could be sent to their new schools.

Dental records were regularly updated. While a major focus was on dental health and hygiene, therapists were able to carry out simple dental treatments. This happened only after parental permission was obtained. More major work could be undertaken by a dentist who periodically visited each school clinic. Alternatively, parents could arrange to take children to the Darwin Dental Clinic where work was carried out. Newly enrolled students were notified to dental staff and checking of teeth quickly followed.

Dental care was included in the oral hygiene program offered to school classes by dental staff, as part of the Health Education program.

School dental clinics remained open on roster during school holidays. Parents were able to make appointments for their children. If a particular school clinic was closed, parents were welcome to attend which ever school on the roster was open and operating at the time. Dental clinic phone numbers were provided to parents by school administration staff and through newsletters.

Regional

There was reasonable access to dental services offered by health clinics in places like Nhulunbuy, Alyangula on Groote Eylandt and other regional centres. Regional dentists visited nearby Aboriginal communities as time allowed.

Service decline

About ten years ago, dental support offered through the schools program began to decline. Some clinics were no longer deemed to meet occupational health and safety standards. While sterilisation facilities existed, these clinics could not meet changing protocols. Where one room had been sufficient, it became necessary for the waiting area, treatment room and sterilisation areas to be visually separated. For some schools these building changes were impossible to achieve.

Transfer or resignation of dental staff was another issue. Those leaving were often not replaced. Today, clinics remain in very few schools and are open for a strictly limited number of days each year. They also have to service children from nearby schools where clinics have been dismantled.

Northern Territory students and parents were supported by a quality program ensuring that dental care was very much to the fore. Sadly that program has all but gone. It is small wonder that dental health for children is now such a problem.
______________________________

Note:

I have now been writing a weekly column for the Suns Newspapers, community papers for Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield for just over twelve months.

Someone suggested that there would be an end to topics with appeal to newspaper readers. Not so. Education is never-ending in terms of its topical nature.

I aim to write in a way that is timely, relevant and contributive to the educational debate.

Feedback is always welcome. In addition to my blogsite I am at henry.gray@bigpond.com

Once upon a time a principal reflected on what was (2010) what have been (1970) and what had happened between times. A little voice in his head told him to think as much as possible about “balance”, “pros” and “cons”, “challenge” and “celebration”. Determined to toward even-handedness he began to reflect on the four decades of his educational experience.

He thought about the waves of systemic leadership that had rolled over the system. There was the “Moresby mafia” followed at intervals by domination from other States, Territories and arrivals from overseas destinations. More recently (2009) the ‘Queensland Cowboys’ had succeeded the Western Australia ‘Sandgropers’ as system leaders. The Northern Territory were certainly hybrid.

He thought about Jim Eedle the Northern Territory’s first Secretary for Education after the NT Government took portfolio carriage for education. Eedle said (Katherine, March 1978), “schools for children” and “Structure should support function.” He thought how structure had now assumed skyscraper proportions with the children somehow in the shadows?

He thought about the back of many children were children who seemed to lack the first hand care and nurture a parent should offer. It seemed this was less forthcoming with the passing of years. Increasingly, schools were asked (indeed required) to take on primary matters of bringing. He wondered and was sad that ‘loco parentis’ was now so mainstream.

He worried that with the passing of years, a preponderance of weighty issues had grown into school curriculum requirements. Lots has been added and little dropped. He wondered how teachers could cope and was concerned the children would be overburdened and staff become disillusioned. The educational pathway seemed increasingly cluttered and overgrown.

He was concerned that written reports were no longer short, succinct, explicit and individualised. Rather they were long on hyperbole being stereotyped, jargon riddled statements. They had become increasingly wordy but in essence said less and less. Notwithstanding the huge amount of teacher effort devoted to their preparation, he felt they really said meant very little to parents.

He worried that with the passing of time, children had become more self-centred. “I” and “my” were pronouns and possessives that underpinned their belief and value systems. He yearned for those times past when, it seemed, children were well mannered and cared for others. “Yes please”, “thank you”, “excuse me” and “may I” were fast disappearing epithets. That he felt underpinned a loss of character.

He wondered where safety and security for children had gone. In the 1970s and 1980s children could play outdoors in what was a safe, secure environment. Come 2012 and parents no longer felt the children were safe. Threat for young people was felt from cyberspace to the street. There was a feeling that children needed to be cocooned and cosseted – but not by parents. As primary caregivers they were too busy at work to offer personal nurture.’Minding’ at Outside School Hours Care centres was the in thing.

He wondered whether, in an enlightened age, children feel ‘used’ when their schooling futures were discussed in a way that likened them to pawns on a chessboard. He also wondered whether children appreciated being ‘objects’ for limited academic testing (Four May Days each year). Did they feel that overall and holistic educational needs were regarded as important by Federal Politicians setting State and Territory educational agendas?

He wondered about modern communications. Were the children of the 1970’s not better speakers and listeners because face to face communication was alive and practised? ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’, texting and the new ICT tools of the twenty-first century reduced the need to gain and have confidence in speech and speaking (including listening). He was concerned that literacy skills were going out the door. What would happen to thinking!

He wondered about the wisdom of straying too far from the scriptural adage,”spare the rod and spoil the child”. While responses to poor behaviour ought not to be barbaric, was not accomodation in 2012 on what was totally unacceptable in 1970, simply encouraging children and young people to push the envelope? Were not the elders abrogating their upbringing responsibilities and being ostrich like?

He was sad that keys, security, guard dogs, dead latches, CCTV cameras, high fences, barbed wire, crimsafe mesh, sensor security systems and floodlights had become the order of installation. It seemed that in 1970, nights were for sleeping. Forty years later, nocturnal malevolence seemed to prevail. He wondered where ‘Where Willie Winkie’ had gone.

He wondered about gender equality. In the 1970’s children deferred to adults on public transport, when going through doors and joining queues. Similarly, men deferred to ladies, the young to the old.
No more!
He wondered why it was that in 2012, chivalry was dead!

He was concerned about ‘pace’. In the 1970’s things moved more slowly. There seemed to be less to do, yet key tasks were completed. There was a simple serenity about the way things were done. Time off work WAS time off work.

He pondered tranquility. Inner peace had been enhanced by the separation of priorities. Family, work and recreation had occupied degrees of importance in that order. Come 2012, it seemed that the imperative of ‘work, work and work until you drop’ had pushed family and recreational pursuits onto the back-burner. Was that not poor prioritisation?
Did the ‘new way’ promote happiness and inner peace?

He wondered about the future. As a young educator in 1970 he had looked to the future with confidence and rosy anticipation. Come 2012 and looking back he wondered why system realities had sullied his vision.

I have now been writing a weekly column for the Suns Newspapers, community papers for Darwin, palmerston and Litchfield for just over twelve months.

Someone suggested that there would be an end to topics with appeal to newspaper readers. Not so. Education is never-ending in terms of its topical nature.

I aim to write in a way that is timely, relevant and contributive to the educational debate.

Feedback is always welcome. In addition to my blogsite I am at henry.gray@bigpond.com

_____________________

UNIFORMS ADD TO PUBLIC SCHOOL CHARACTER

Much has been said and written about school uniforms for Northern Territory school students. The issue has been more newsworthy than for other States and Territories. Wearing of school uniforms by children attending interstate government schools has been the accepted practice for many years. The issue for NT students at government schools is more recent and the policy still developing.

Fact or myth

A story that did the rounds after Cyclone Tracy’s devastating impact in 1974, was that in students had worn uniform. However, this practice was discontinued in the aftermath of Tracy and not revisited until much later. This may or may not have been the case. However, the fact there was no dress code for government school students, certainly set them apart in appearance from their private school counterparts.

The issue of student dress was left to individual schools and their communities. Some made more effort than others to develop policies on dress standards. It was common practice for schools, where dress mattered, to mention and reward ‘most uniform conscious’ classes at school assemblies and in newsletters. In some schools ‘mascots’ were awarded to the best dressed class of the week.

Difficulties

This school based approach generally worked well. However there were students and parents who resisted the push on dress standards. On occasion, complaints were raised to the department by these parents, with principals generally being instructed to support non-compliant students. This made it very difficult for principals and councils who were trying to set dress standards through promoting the wearing of school uniforms. The biggest issue was encouraging uniform wearing students, while having to accommodate that minority excused from compliance. Lack of system backing did not help. Principals and school leaders had to manage the issue on their own.

Policy change

In July 2009, the NT Education Department introduced a school uniform policy, applicable to students for primary and middle schools. Wearing of school uniform became compulsory, with exceptions for students on cultural or religious grounds. Safety and health requirements included the need for enclosed hats and enclosed shoes. The introduction of this policy had some positive results.

* It lifted the standards of student appearance.
* It added to the identification of students with their schools.
* It built the levels of pride children felt for their schools.
* Students become aware that levels of behaviour, especially in public, needed to reflect school standards.
* In many cases it reduced costs to parents. School uniforms were cheaper than alternative dress.

While primary school students accepted uniform as including school shirts, shorts, skirts or dresses, middle primary students were generally content with shirts only. That amounts to partial uniform compliance, meaning there is still some way to go in developing standards to meet the full dress code.

Until recently, Senior School students (years 10 -12) were free to wear, within reason, whatever they liked. Uniforms are now being considered for senior students and not before time. Senior Secondary students should be representing their schools in the same way as their younger peers. (38)

Appearance counts

Attitude toward wearing school uniforms can be a strong selling point for parents and enrolling students. In this respect, private school students have outshone their public school counterparts for many years. The non-government school sector is still well on top in this domain. Adherence to working policies on school uniform requirements, sells schools to many parents.

Compared with interstate government schools, our attitude to the wearing of school uniform is still quite cavalier. It is an area in which improvement needs to be continued, for the sake of public schools and their image.
_____________________

SUN 53 29 – 2014

UNIFORMS ADD TO PUBLIC SCHOOL CHARACTER

Much has been said and written about school uniforms for Northern Territory school students. The issue has been more newsworthy than for other States and Territories. Wearing of school uniforms by children attending interstate government schools has been the accepted practice for many years. The issue for NT students at government schools is more recent and the policy still developing.

Fact or myth

A story that did the rounds after Cyclone Tracy’s devastating impact in 1974, was that in students had worn uniform. However, this practice was discontinued in the aftermath of Tracy and not revisited until much later. This may or may not have been the case. However, the fact there was no dress code for government school students, certainly set them apart in appearance from their private school counterparts.

The issue of student dress was left to individual schools and their communities. Some made more effort than others to develop policies on dress standards. It was common practice for schools, where dress mattered, to mention and reward ‘most uniform conscious’ classes at school assemblies and in newsletters. In some schools ‘mascots’ were awarded to the best dressed class of the week.

Difficulties

This school based approach generally worked well. However there were students and parents who resisted the push on dress standards. On occasion, complaints were raised to the department by these parents, with principals generally being instructed to support non-compliant students. This made it very difficult for principals and councils who were trying to set dress standards through promoting the wearing of school uniforms. The biggest issue was encouraging uniform wearing students, while having to accommodate that minority excused from compliance. Lack of system backing did not help. Principals and school leaders had to manage the issue on their own.

Policy change

In July 2009, the NT Education Department introduced a school uniform policy, applicable to students for primary and middle schools. Wearing of school uniform became compulsory, with exceptions for students on cultural or religious grounds. Safety and health requirements included the need for enclosed hats and enclosed shoes. The introduction of this policy had some positive results.

* It lifted the standards of student appearance.
* It added to the identification of students with their schools.
* It built the levels of pride children felt for their schools.
* Students become aware that levels of behaviour, especially in public, needed to reflect school standards.
* In many cases it reduced costs to parents. School uniforms were cheaper than alternative dress.

While primary school students accepted uniform as including school shirts, shorts, skirts or dresses, middle primary students were generally content with shirts only. That amounts to partial uniform compliance, meaning there is still some way to go in developing standards to meet the full dress code.

Until recently, Senior School students (years 10 -12) were free to wear, within reason, whatever they liked. Uniforms are now being considered for senior students and not before time. Senior Secondary students should be representing their schools in the same way as their younger peers. (38)

Appearance counts

Attitude toward wearing school uniforms can be a strong selling point for parents and enrolling students. In this respect, private school students have outshone their public school counterparts for many years. The non-government school sector is still well on top in this domain. Adherence to working policies on school uniform requirements, sells schools to many parents.

Compared with interstate government schools, our attitude to the wearing of school uniform is still quite cavalier. It is an area in which improvement needs to be continued, for the sake of public schools and their image.